Prospective audit of the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the west of Scotland. West of Scotland Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Audit Group

Long-term follow-up of non-operated patients with symptomatic gallbladder stones: a retrospective study evaluating the role of Hepatobiliary scanning

Background

To assess hepatobiliary (HB) scans for predicting recurrent symptoms in nonoperated patients with mild or vague symptomatic gallstones.

Methods

Data of 170 patients with symptomatic gallstone and who had not undergone cholecystectomy were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not operations were performed due to recurrent symptoms during the follow-up period. The demographic factors and gallbladder ejection fraction (GBEF) of HB scans were compared between the groups. Additionally, symptom-free rate was obtained beginning from the date of the HB scan to the date of surgery, and analyzed based on the level of GBEF.

Results

Among the 170 enrolled patients, two patients who underwent cholecystectomy for other disease were excluded. Thirty-four patients underwent cholecystectomy due to recurrent symptoms (OP group), and the remaining 136 patients did not experience recurrent symptoms and therefore did not undergo cholecystectomy (non-OP group). In the OP group, the mean GBEF was significantly lower than that of the non-OP group (28.8 ± 29.9 vs. 66.3 ± 20.0; P < 0.001). The rate of lower GBEF (<30 %, including non-visualization of the gallbladder) was significantly higher in the OP group than the non-OP group (54.9 vs. 5.1 %; P < 0.001). In patients with non-visualization of the gallbladder or GBEF <30 %, the 10-year symptom-free rate was significantly lower than those with a GBEF ≥ 30 % (19.8 % vs. 81.9 %; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

HB scanning is a useful objective modality to differentiate gallstone-related symptoms from other etiologies and predict recurrent symptoms.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy compared with observation/conservative management for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10-15% of the adult population suffer from gallstone disease, cholelithiasis, with more women than men being affected. Cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice for people who present with biliary pain or acute cholecystitis and evidence of gallstones. However, some people do not experience a recurrence after an initial episode of biliary pain or cholecystitis. As most of the current research focuses on the surgical management of the disease, less attention has been dedicated to the consequences of conservative management.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy compared with observation/conservative management in people presenting with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones (biliary pain) or cholecystitis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched all major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Bioscience Information Service, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1980 to September 2012 and we contacted experts in the field.

REVIEW METHODS

Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies that enrolled people with symptomatic gallstone disease (pain attacks only and/or acute cholecystitis). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Standard meta-analysis techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A de novo Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

RESULTS

Two Norwegian RCTs involving 201 participants were included. Eighty-eight per cent of people randomised to surgery and 45% of people randomised to observation underwent cholecystectomy during the 14-year follow-up period. Participants randomised to observation were significantly more likely to experience gallstone-related complications [risk ratio = 6.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 28.51; p = 0.01], in particular acute cholecystitis (risk ratio = 9.55; 95% CI 1.25 to 73.27; p = 0.03), and less likely to undergo surgery (risk ratio = 0.50; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73; p = 0.0004), experience surgery-related complications (risk ratio = 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.81; p = 0.01) or, more specifically, minor surgery-related complications (risk ratio = 0.11; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.56; p = 0.008) than those randomised to surgery. Fifty-five per cent of people randomised to observation did not require an operation during the 14-year follow-up period and 12% of people randomised to cholecystectomy did not undergo the scheduled operation. The results of the economic evaluation suggest that, on average, the surgery strategy costs £1236 more per patient than the conservative management strategy but was, on average, more effective. An increase in the number of people requiring surgery while treated conservatively corresponded to a reduction in the cost-effectiveness of the conservative strategy. There was uncertainty around some of the parameters used in the economic model.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this assessment indicate that cholecystectomy is still the treatment of choice for many symptomatic people. However, approximately half of the people in the observation group did not require surgery or suffer complications in the long term indicating that a conservative therapeutic approach may represent a valid alternative to surgery in this group of people. Owing to the dearth of current evidence in the UK setting a large, well-designed, multicentre trial is needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002817.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed using two 10-mm ports and two 5-mm ports. Recently, a reduction in the number of ports has been suggested as a modification of the standard technique with a view to decreasing pain and improving cosmesis. The safety and effectiveness of using fewer-than-four ports has not yet been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits (such as improvement in cosmesis and earlier return to activity) and harms (such as increased complications) of using fewer-than-four ports (fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy) versus four ports in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for any reason (symptomatic gallstones, acalculous cholecystitis, gallbladder polyp, or any other condition).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 8, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal to September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing fewer-than-four ports versus four ports, that is, with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy that is performed with two ports of at least 10-mm incision and two ports of at least 5-mm incision.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted the data. We analysed the data using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis, whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We found nine trials with 855 participants that randomised participants to fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 427) versus four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 428). Most trials included low anaesthetic risk participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seven of the nine trials used a single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the remaining two trials used three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the experimental intervention. Only one trial including 70 participants had low risk of bias. Fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 90% of participants in most trials. The remaining participants were mostly converted to four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some participants had to undergo open cholecystectomy.There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (318 participants in fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 316 participants in four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group). The proportion of participants with serious adverse events was low in both treatment groups and the estimated RR was compatible with a reduction and substantial increased risk with the fewer-than-four-ports group (6/318 (1.9%)) and four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (0/316 (0%)) (RR 3.93; 95% CI 0.86 to 18.04; 7 trials; 634 participants; very low quality evidence). The estimated difference in the quality of life (measured between 10 and 30 days) was imprecise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.18; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.42; 4 trials; 510 participants; very low quality evidence), as was the proportion of participants in whom the laparoscopic cholecystectomy had to be converted to open cholecystectomy between the groups (fewer-than-four ports 3/289 (adjusted proportion 1.2%) versus four port: 5/292 (1.7%); RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.35; 5 trials; 581 participants; very low quality evidence). The fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy took 14 minutes longer to complete (MD 14.44 minutes; 95% CI 5.95 to 22.93; 9 trials; 855 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.01 days; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.26; 6 trials; 731 participants) or in the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22; 1 trial; 50 participants; very low quality evidence) between the two groups. The times taken to return to normal activity and work were shorter by two days in the fewer-than-four-ports group compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (return to normal activity: MD -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.58 to -0.81; 2 trials; 325 participants; very low quality evidence; return to work: MD -2.00 days; 95% CI -3.31 to -0.69; 1 trial; 150 participants; very low quality evidence). There was no significant difference in cosmesis scores at 6 to 12 months between the two groups (SMD 0.37; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.84; 2 trials; 317 participants; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine whether there is any significant clinical benefit in using fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety profile of using fewer-than-four ports is yet to be established and fewer-than-four-ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be reserved for well-designed randomised clinical trials.

Hemobilia due to cystic artery stump pseudoaneurysm following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: case presentation and literature review

Hemobilia is the process of bleeding into the biliary tree and is an unusual cause of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. When this event results from a cystic artery pseudoaneurysm, it is a particularly rare phenomenon; fewer than 20 cases are described in the literature. Alongside the literature review, we report a case of a 34-year-old woman presenting 3 months post laparoscopic cholecystectomy with hematemesis. Computed tomography (CT) angiography revealed a cystic artery pseudoaneurysm. Following an ineffective hyperselective arterial embolization, the patient was successfully treated by surgical ligation of the right hepatic artery. Even though this complication is uncommon, all surgeons need to be aware of its presentation and of available therapeutic options.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (key-hole removal of the gallbladder) is now the most often used method for treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum, which is now introduced to allow laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These cardiopulmonary changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared to pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) versus pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using the Review Manager (RevMan) software.

MAIN RESULTS

For abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 130 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in five trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 53) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 52). One trial which included 25 people did not state the number of participants in each group. All five trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality or conversion to open cholecystectomy in any of the participants in the trials that reported these outcomes. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (two trials; 2/29 events (0.069 events per person) versus 2/29 events (0.069 events per person); rate ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.77). None of the trials reported quality of life, the proportion of people discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomies, or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (four trials; 53 participants versus 54 participants; 13.39 minutes longer (95% CI 2.73 less to 29.51 minutes longer) in the abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum group and 100 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group).For abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 774 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in 18 trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 332) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 358). One trial which included 84 people did not state the number in each group. All the trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality in any of the trials that reported this outcome. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (six trials; 5/172 (weighted proportion 2.4%) versus 2/171 (1.2%); RR 2.01; 95% CI 0.52 to 7.80). There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (three trials; 5/99 events (weighted number of events per person = 0.346 events) versus 2/99 events (0.020 events per person); rate ratio 1.73; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.61). None of the trials reported quality of life or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the proportion of people who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 5/225 (weighted proportion 2.3%) versus 7/235 (3.0%); RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.21). The operating time was significantly longer in the abdominal wall lift group than in the pneumoperitoneum group (16 trials; 6.87 minutes longer (95% CI 4.74 minutes to 9.00 minutes longer) in the abdominal wall lift group versus 75 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group). There was no significant difference in the proportion of people discharged as laparoscopic cholecystectomy day-patients (two trials; 15/31 (weighted proportion 48.5%) versus 9/31 (29%); RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.85 to 3.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall lift with or without pneumoperitoneum does not seem to offer an advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in people with low anaesthetic risk. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. The safety of abdominal wall lift is yet to be established. More research on the topic is needed because of the risk of bias in the included trials and because of the risk of type I and type II random errors due to the few participants included in the trials. Future trials should include people at higher anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials should include blinded assessment of outcomes.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy for high-risk surgical patients with acute calculous cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

The management of people at high risk of perioperative death due to their general condition (high-risk surgical patients) with acute calculous cholecystitis is controversial, with no clear guidelines. In particular, the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in these patients has not been defined.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (temporary or permanent relief of symptoms) and harms (recurrence of symptoms, procedure-related morbidity) of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the management of high-risk individuals with symptomatic gallstones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to December 2012 to identify the randomised clinical trials. We also handsearched the references lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) addressing this issue.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected data independently. For each outcome, we calculated the P values using Fisher's exact test or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials with 156 participants for this review. The comparisons included in these two trials were percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1 trial; 70 participants) and percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment (1 trial; 86 participants). Both trials had high risk of bias. Percutaneous cholecystostomy with early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy: There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (0/37 versus 1/33; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.47). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (1/31 versus 2/30; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.61). This trial did not report on quality of life. There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy between the two intervention groups (2/31 percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 4/30 delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.43). The mean total hospital stay was significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -9.90 days; 95% CI -12.31 to -7.49). The mean total costs were significantly lower in the percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by early laparoscopic cholecystectomy group compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy group (1 trial; 61 participants; MD -1123.00 USD; 95% CI -1336.60 to -909.40). Percutaneous cholecystostomy versus conservative treatment: Nine of the 44 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Seven of the 42 participants underwent delayed cholecystectomy in the conservative treatment group. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 7/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.77). There was no significant difference in overall morbidity between the two intervention groups (6/44 versus 3/42; Fisher's exact test: P value = 0.49). The number of participants who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy was not reported in this trial. Therefore, we were unable to calculate the proportion of participants who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy. The other outcomes, total hospital stay, quality of life, and total costs, were not reported in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current available evidence from randomised clinical trials, we are unable to determine the role of percutaneous cholecystostomy in the clinical management of high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. There is a need for adequately powered randomised clinical trials of low risk of bias on this issue.

Miniports versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

In conventional (standard) port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports, miniports, have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than the standard ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevMan analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials with 734 patients randomised to miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (380 patients) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (351 patients). Only one trial which included 70 patients was of low risk of bias. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients in most trials. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. These patients were included for the outcome conversion to open cholecystectomy but excluded from other outcomes. Accordingly, the results of the other outcomes are on 343 patients in the miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and 351 patients in the standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy group, and therefore the results have to be interpreted with extreme caution.There was no mortality in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/194 patients in miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus 0/203 patients in standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the proportion of patients who developed serious adverse events (eight trials; 460 patients; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.08) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 1/226 (adjusted proportion 0.4%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 3/234 (1.3%); quality of life at 10 days after surgery (one trial; 70 patients; SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.68 to 0.27); or in whom the laparoscopic operation had to be converted to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 670 patients; RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.45) (miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: 8/351 (adjusted proportion 2.3%) versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy 6/319 (1.9%)). Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy took five minutes longer to complete than standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (12 trials; 695 patients; MD 4.91 minutes; 95% CI 2.38 to 7.44). There were no significant differences between miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the length of hospital stay (six trials; 351 patients; MD -0.00 days; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11); the time taken to return to activity (one trial; 52 patients; MD 0.00 days; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.31); or in the time taken for the patient to return to work (two trials; 187 patients; MD 0.28 days; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.99) between the groups. There was no significant difference in the cosmesis scores at six months to 12 months after surgery between the two groups (two trials; 152 patients; SMD 0.13; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.46).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 80% of patients. There appears to be no advantage of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of decreasing mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, return to activity, return to work, or improving cosmesis. On the other hand, there is a modest increase in operating time after miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with standard port laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the safety of miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy is yet to be established. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended routinely outside well-designed randomised clinical trials. Further trials of low risks of bias and low risks of random errors are necessary.

Robot assistant versus human or another robot assistant in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of a robotic assistant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of a robotic assistant over a human assistant others have not, and it is unclear which robotic assistant is best.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review are to assess the benefits and harms of a robot assistant versus human assistant or versus another robot assistant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and to assess whether the robot can substitute the human assistant.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (until February 2012) for identifying the randomised clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing robot assistants versus human assistants in laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. Randomised clinical trials comparing different types of robot assistants were also considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the trials for inclusion and independently extracted the data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on intention-to-treat analysis, when possible, using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six trials with 560 patients. One trial involving 129 patients did not state the number of patients randomised to the two groups. In the remaining five trials 431 patients were randomised, 212 to the robot assistant group and 219 to the human assistant group. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Mortality and morbidity were reported in only one trial with 40 patients. There was no mortality or morbidity in either group. Mortality and morbidity were not reported in the remaining trials. Quality of life or the proportion of patients who were discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients were not reported in any trial. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who required conversion to open cholecystectomy (2 trials; 4/63 (weighted proportion 6.4%) in the robot assistant group versus 5/70 (7.1%) in the human assistant group; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.25 to 3.20). There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (4 trials; 324 patients; MD 5.00 minutes; 95% CI -0.55 to 10.54). In one trial, about one sixth of the laparoscopic cholecystectomies in which a robot assistant was used required temporary use of a human assistant. In another trial, there was no requirement for human assistants. One trial did not report this information. It appears that there was little or no requirement for human assistants in the other three trials. There were no randomised trials comparing one type of robot versus another type of robot.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Robot assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not seem to offer any significant advantages over human assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, all trials had a high risk of systematic errors or bias (that is, risk of overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm). All trials were small, with few or no outcomes. Hence, the risk of random errors (that is, play of chance) is high. Further randomised trials with low risk of bias or random errors are needed.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (key-hole removal of the gallbladder) is now the most often used method for treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum, which is now introduced to allow laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These cardiopulmonary changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared with pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) versus pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the risk ratio (RR), rate ratio (RaR), or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan software.

MAIN RESULTS

For abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 156 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in six trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 65) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 66). One trial which included 25 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All six trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality or conversion to open cholecystectomy in any of the patients in the trials that reported these outcomes. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (2 trials; 2/29 events (0.069 events per patient) versus 2/29 events (0.069 events per patient); rate ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.77). None of the trials reported quality of life, the proportion of patients discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomies, or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (4 trials; 53 patients versus 54 patients; 13.39 minutes longer (2.73 less to 29.51 longer) in the abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum group and 100 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group).For abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum, a total of 774 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in 18 trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 332) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 358). One trial which included 84 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All the trials had a high risk of bias. There was no mortality in any of the trials that reported this outcome. There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups (6 trials; 5/172 events (weighted number of events per patient = 0.020 events) versus 2/171 events (0.012 events per patient); rate ratio 1.73; 95% CI 0.35 to 8.61). None of the trials reported quality of life or pain between four and eight hours after the operation. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (11 trials; 5/225 (weighted proportion 2.3%) versus 7/235 (3.0%); RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.21). The operating time was significantly longer in the abdominal wall lift group than the pneumoperitoneum group (16 trials; 6.87 minutes longer (4.74 to 9.00 longer) in the abdominal wall lift group; 75 minutes in the pneumoperitoneum group). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who were discharged as day-patient laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients (2 trials; 15/31 (weighted proportion 48.5%) versus 9/31 (29%); RR 1.67; 95% CI 0.85 to 3.26).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall lift does not seem to offer an advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with low anaesthetic risk. It may increase costs by increasing the operating time. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. The safety of abdominal wall lift is yet to be established. More research on the topic is needed because of the risk of bias in the included trials and because of the risk of type I and type II random errors because of the few patients included in the trials. Such trials ought to include patients at higher anaesthetic risk. Furthermore, such trials ought to include blinded assessment of outcome measures.

Three dimensional versus two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The benefits and harms of three dimensional imaging versus traditional two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy are not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of use of three dimensional systems versus two dimensional systems during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until October 2010 for randomised clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We intended to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial randomised 60 patients to three dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 30) versus standard two dimensional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 30). This trial was of high risk of bias. There were no post-operative complications or conversion to open cholecystectomy in either group. There was no significant difference in the operating time (MD -1.00 minute; 95% CI -17.77 to 15.77) or number of errors between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no evidence that three dimensional image is superior to two dimensional image in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

On the road to single-site laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding: lessons learned from 60 cases

BACKGROUND

Single-site laparoscopic surgery is a promising emerging technique with potential to decrease postoperative pain, reduce port-site complications, and improve cosmetic results. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LapGB) is a procedure that lends itself well to single-site laparoscopic surgery because the surgery is confined to a single region of the body, the need for a larger incision for port implantation and the fact that bariartric patients are more likely to be body image conscious. The procedure is, however, technically challenging and potentially more time consuming and hazardous. To simplify learning, a hybrid technique that used multiple conventional trocars and laparoscopic equipment through a single periumbilical incision while retaining the use of the Nathanson retractor via a separate epigastric incision was developed. The authors' experience and results with this technique are described.

METHODS

This retrospective review describes the prospectively collected data for the first 60 consecutive cases completed using the minimally invasive technique described.

RESULTS

The 60 cases in this study comprised 12 men and 48 women with an average age of 39 years (range 20-59 years). Their average body mass index (BMI) was 39.1 kg/m(2) (range 32-52 kg/m(2)). Four patients (6.7%) needed an additional port either for hemostasis or for access difficulties. Concomitant hiatal hernia repair was performed for 13 patients. Five patients (8.3%) had superficial wound infection requiring oral antibiotic therapy and dressings. No other complications were observed. Overall, the average operating time was 55 min (range 30-160 min). For both surgeons, the learning curve was six cases, with a significant difference in the operating times between the first six cases and the remaining cases (p < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' early experience with the minimally invasive LapGB technique shows that it is feasible and safe. It can be used either as a bridging technique to single-site LapGB or on its own as a minimally invasive technique.

Methods of cystic duct occlusion during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

During laparoscopic cholecystectomy, it is necessary to occlude the cystic duct permanently. Traditionally, this has been performed through the application of non-absorbable metal clips. Use of absorbable materials to occlude the cystic duct has been suggested as an alternative for metal clips for various reasons.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the different methods of occlusion of cystic duct in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing different methods of occlusion of cystic duct.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, bile duct injury, bile leaks, operating time, and incidence of recurrent common bile duct stone from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR) in the presence of more than one trial for the outcome or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. In the presence of only one trial under a dichotomous outcome, we performed the Fisher's exact test.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials including 255 patients qualified for this review. In two of the trial, a total of 150 patients were randomised to absorbable clips (n = 75) and non-absorbable clips (n = 75). In the third trial, a total of 105 patients were randomised to absorbable ligatures (n = 53) and non-absorbable clips (n = 52). All three trials were of high risk of bias. There was no difference in the morbidity between the groups. There was statistically significant longer operating time (MD 12.00 minutes, 95% CI 1.59 to 22.41) in the absorbable ligature group than non-absorbable clips. The duration and method of follow-up were not adequate to determine the incidence of long-term complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are unable to determine the benefits and harms of different methods of cystic duct occlusion because of the small sample size, short period of follow-up, and lack of reporting of important outcomes in the included trials. Adequately powered randomised trials with low risk of bias and with long periods of follow-up and assessing all of the important outcomes for patients and professionals are necessary.

Miniport versus standard ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

In conventional (standard) laparoscopic cholecystectomy, four abdominal ports (two of 10 mm diameter and two of 5 mm diameter) are used. Recently, use of smaller ports have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of miniport (defined as ports smaller than conventional ports) laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until September 2009 for identifying the randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing miniport versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included thirteen trials with 803 patients randomised to miniport (n = 416) versus standard ports laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 387). In twelve trials, four ports were used. In one trial, three ports were used. The bias risk of all trials was high. Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be completed successfully in 87% of patients. The remaining patients were mostly converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy but some were also converted to open cholecystectomy. Further information about these patients who underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy was not available in most trials. In the patients on whom information was available, there was no mortality reported; and there was no significant difference in the surgery-related morbidity or conversion to open cholecystectomy. Most trials excluded the patients who were converted to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In patients who underwent successful miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the pain was significantly lower in the miniport group than in the standard port at various time points.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be completed successfully in more than 85% of patients. Patients, in whom elective miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy was completed successfully, had lower pain than those who underwent standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, because of the lack of information on its safety, miniport laparoscopic cholecystectomy cannot be recommended outside well-designed, randomised clinical trials.

Comparative study between clipless laparoscopic cholecystectomy by harmonic scalpel versus conventional method: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

This study was planned to compare the traditional method of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) versus LC using harmonic as regard the safety and efficacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study included group A (70 patients) in whom LC was conducted using the traditional method (TM) by clipping both cystic duct and artery and dissection of gallbladder from liver bed by diathermy, and group B (70 patients) LC was conducted using harmonic scalpel (HS) closure and division of both cystic duct and artery and dissection of gallbladder from liver bed by HS. The intraoperative and postoperative parameters were collected including duration of operation, postoperative pain, and complications.

RESULTS

HS provides a shorter operative duration than TM (33.21 + 9.6 vs. 51.7 + 13.79, respectively, p = 0.001), with a significant less incidence of gallbladder peroration (7.1% vs. 18.6, p = 0.04) and less rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy but not reach a statistical significance. The amount of postoperative drainage is significantly less in HS (29 + 30 vs. 47.7 + 31, p = 0.001). No postoperative bile leak was encountered in HS, but it occurred in 2.9% of patients in TM. VAS in HS at 12 h postoperative was 3.25 + 1.84 vs 5.01 + 1.2 (p = 0.001) and at 24 h postoperative was 3.12 + 1.64 vs. 4.48 + 1.89 (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

HS provides a complete hemobiliary stasis and is a safe alternative to stander clip of cystic duct and artery. It provides a shorter operative duration, less incidence of gallbladder perforation, less postoperative pain, and less rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy.

Low pressure versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A pneumoperitoneum of 12 to 16 mmHg is used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Lower pressures are claimed to be safe and effective in decreasing cardiopulmonary complications and pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of low pressure pneumoperitoneum compared with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until November 2008 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data on mortality, morbidity, conversion to open cholecystectomy, pain, analgesic requirement, operating time, hospital stay, patient satisfaction, additional measures to increase vision, and cardiopulmonary parameters. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models with RevMan 5 based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials randomised 690 patients to low pressure (n = 336) and standard pressure (n = 354). All the trials were of high risk of bias. There was no difference in the mortality, morbidity, or conversion to open cholecystectomy between the groups. The intensity of pain was lower in the low pressure group at various time points. The incidence of shoulder pain was lower in the low pressure group (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). The analgesic consumption was also lower. The operating time was similar between the groups (MD 2.30 minutes; 95% CI 0.42 to 4.18). Because of the high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data in seven trials, it was not possible to conclude about the safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low pressure pneumoperitoneum appears effective in decreasing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety of low pressure pneumoperitoneum has to be established.

Cholecystectomy for suspected gallbladder dyskinesia

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for patients with suspected biliary dyskinesia is controversial. Some studies found that cholecystectomy produced symptomatic improvement in patients with gallbladder dyskinesia (diagnosed by low gallbladder ejection fraction) while others found no significant benefit. Some studies have shown that gallbladder ejection fraction can discriminate patients who would benefit from cholecystectomy. Other studies have not confirmed this.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to compare the benefits and harms of cholecystectomy for patients with suspected gallbladder dyskinesia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy on patients with gallbladder dyskinesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, number of patients in whom symptoms were improved or cured from the one identified trial. We planned to analyse the data using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial with 21 patients randomised: 11 to cholecystectomy and 10 to control (no cholecystectomy). This trial was considered to be of high risk of bias as patients were not blinded and the procedure-related morbidity was not reported. There was no mortality in either group. All patients in the cholecystectomy group and only one patient in the control group had improvement in symptoms (P = 0.0001) after a mean follow-up period of 33.6 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the benefits and harms of cholecystectomy in gallbladder dyskinesia from randomised clinical trials is based on a single small trial at risk of bias. Further randomised clinical trials with improved bias control are necessary to confirm or reject the promising results.

Cholecystectomy for gallbladder polyp

BACKGROUND

The management of gallbladder polyps is controversial. Cholecystectomy has been recommended for gallbladder polyps larger than 10 mm because of the association with gallbladder cancer. Cholecystectomy has also been suggested for gallbladder polyps smaller than 10 mm in patients with biliary type of symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to compare the benefits (relief of symptoms, decreased incidence of gallbladder cancer) and harms (surgical morbidity) of cholecystectomy in patients with gallbladder polyp(s).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2008 to identify the randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing cholecystectomy and no cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to collect the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, number of patients in whom symptoms were improved or cured from the one identified trial. We planned to analyse the data using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we planned to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with a gallbladder polyp.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no randomised trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with gallbladder polyps. Randomised clinical trials with low bias -risk are necessary to address the question of whether cholecystectomy is indicated in gallbladder polyps smaller than10 mm.

Robot assistant for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of a robotic assistant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy is controversial. While some trials have shown distinct advantages of robotic assistant over a human assistant, others have not, and it is unclear which robotic assistant is best.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review are to compare the safety of robot assistant versus human assistant in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to assess whether the robot can substitute for the human assistant.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until May 2008 for identifying the randomised trials using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing robot assistants versus human assistants in laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review. Randomised clinical trials comparing different types of robot assistants were also considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently identified the trials for exclusion and independently extracted the data. We calculated the risk ratio, mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case-analysis using RevMan 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (all of high risk of bias) with 453 patients randomised: 159 to the robot-assistant group and 165 to the human assistant group (one trial report of 129 patients was a conference abstract, not reporting on the number of patients in each group). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for morbidity, conversion to open cholecystectomy, total operating time, or hospital stay when fixed-effect or random-effects model were used. The instrument set-up time was significantly lower in the human assistant group. In one trial, about one sixth of the laparoscopic cholecystectomies in which robot assistant was used, required temporary use of a human assistant. It appears that there was little or no requirement for human assistants in the other three published trials. In two of the three trials, which reported surgeons' preference, the surgeons preferred a robot assistant to a human assistant. There was no statistically significant difference in the accuracy when the random-effects model was used. There was no difference in the errors.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy appears safe, there seems to be no significant advantages over human-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We were unable to identify trials comparing one type of robot assistant versus another. Further randomised trials with low bias-risk and random errors are needed.

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for biliary colic

BACKGROUND

Biliary colic is one of the commonest indications for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy involves several months of waiting if performed electively. However, patients can develop life-threatening complications during this waiting period.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for patients with biliary colic due to gallstones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language and publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data. We intended to calculate the risk ratio, risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes using RevMan 4.2 based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one trial including 75 patients, randomised to early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than 24 hours of diagnosis) (n = 35) and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (mean waiting period of 4.2 months) (n = 40), qualified for this review. This trial was of high risk of bias. During the waiting period in the delayed group (mean 4.2 months), the complications that the patients suffered included severe acute pancreatitis resulting in mortality (1), empyema of gallbladder (1), gallbladder perforation (1), acute cholecystitis (2), cholangitis (2), obstructive jaundice (2), and recurrent biliary colic requiring hospital visits (5). The rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy was lower in the early group (0%) than the delayed group (8/40 or 20%) (p = 0.0172). There was a statistically significant shorter operating time and hospital stay in the early group than the delayed group (WMD -14.80 minutes, 95% CI -18.02 to -11.58 and -1.25 days, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.45 respectively). Fourteen patients (35%) required 18 hospital admissions for symptoms related to gallstones during the mean waiting period of 4.2 months in the delayed group. This is equivalent to 11 admissions per 100 persons per month.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence from only one high-bias risk trial, it appears that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (< 24 hours of diagnosis of biliary colic) decreases the morbidity during the waiting period for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, decreases the rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy, decreases operating time, and decreases hospital stay. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to confirm or refute this finding.

Day-case versus overnight stay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Although day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety remains to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and benefits of day-case surgery compared to overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2008 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, comparing day-case and overnight stay in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation, re-admissions, pain and quality of life from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the risk ratio, weighted mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials with 429 patients randomised to the day-case group (215) and overnight stay group (214) were included in the review. All the trials were of high risk of bias. The trials recruited 49% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. The selection criteria varied, but most included only patients without other diseases. The patients were living in easy reach of the hospital and with a responsible adult to take care of them. On the day of surgery, 81% of day-case patients were discharged. The drop-out rate after randomisation varied from 6.5% to 12.7%. There was no significant difference between day-case and overnight stay group as regards to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, re-admission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction and return to normal activity and work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective intervention in selected patients (with no or minimal systemic disease and within easy reach of the hospital) with symptomatic gallstones. Because of the decreased hospital stay, it is likely to save costs.

Abdominal lift for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Several cardiopulmonary changes (decreased cardiac output, pulmonary compliance, and increased peak airway pressure) occur during pneumoperitoneum. These changes may not be tolerated in individuals with poor cardiopulmonary reserve.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of abdominal wall lift compared to pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation IndexExpanded until January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing abdominal wall lift (with or without pneumoperitoneum) and pneumoperitoneum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum versus pneumoperitoneum. A total of 156 participants (all with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in six trials to abdominal wall lift with pneumoperitoneum (n = 65) versus pneumoperitoneum only (n = 66). One trial which included 25 patients did not state the number of patients in each group. All six trials were of high risk of bias. The cardiopulmonary changes were less in abdominal wall lift than pneumoperitoneum. There was no difference in the morbidity and pain between the groups. Abdominal wall lift versus pneumoperitoneum. A total of 550 participants (the majority with low anaesthetic risk) who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomised in fourteen trials to abdominal wall lift without pneumoperitoneum (n = 268) versus pneumoperitoneum (n = 282). Two of these fourteen trials were of low risk of bias. The cardiopulmonary changes were less in abdominal wall lift than with pneumoperitoneum. There was no difference in the morbidity and pain between the groups. The operating time was prolonged in abdominal wall lift compared with pneumoperitoneum (WMD 7.74, 95% CI 1.37 to 14.12).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

(1) Abdominal wall lift seems safe and decreases the cardiopulmonary changes associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy.(2) Abdominal wall lift does not seem to offer advantage over pneumoperitoneum in any of the patient-oriented outcomes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with low anaesthetic risk and may increase costs by increasing the operating time. Hence it cannot be recommended routinely. More research on the topic is needed.

Day-case versus overnight stay in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Although day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can save bed costs, its safety remains to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and benefits of day-case surgery compared to overnight stay in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2007 for identifying randomised trials using search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, comparing day-case and overnight stay in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation, re-admissions, pain and quality of life from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the relative risk, weighted mean difference, or standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on available case-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials with 429 patients randomised to the day-case group (215) and overnight stay group (214) were included in the review. Four of the five trials were of low risk of bias regarding randomisation and follow up, but all lacked blinding. The trials recruited 49% of patients undergoing cholecystectomy. The selection criteria varied, but most included only patients without other diseases. The patients were living in easy reach of the hospital and with a responsible adult to take care of them. On the day of surgery, 81% of day-case patients were discharged. The drop-out rate after randomisation varied from 6.5% to 12.7%. There was no significant difference between day-case and overnight stay group as regards to morbidity, prolongation of hospital stay, re-admission rates, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction and return to normal activity and work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Day-case elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to be a safe and effective intervention in selected patients (with no or minimal systemic disease and within easy reach of the hospital) with symptomatic gallstones. Because of the decreased hospital stay, it is likely to save costs.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We analysed six trials involving 741 patients randomised to drain (361) versus no drain (380). The only patient with abdominal collections requiring intervention belonged to the drain group. Wound infection was significantly higher in those with a drain (OR 5.86, 95% CI 1.05 to 32.70). Drainage was associated with nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group and the number of patients discharged at the day of operation was significantly reduced in the no drain group (OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.57, 1 trial). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). This trial suggests that suction drains carried less pain than passive drains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Drain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the main method of treatment of symptomatic gallstones. Drains are used after laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent abdominal collections. However, drain use may increase infective complications and delay discharge.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials comparing drainage with no drainage after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Randomised clinical trials comparing one type of drain with another were also reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, abdominal collections, pain, nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We analysed five trials involving 591 patients randomised to drain (281) versus no drain (310). We also reviewed one trial with 41 patients randomised to suction drain (22) versus closed passive drain (19). The only trial that reported on abdominal collections requiring intervention reported no abdominal collections requiring intervention in either group. Wound infection tended to be higher in those with a drain (OR 15.38, 95% CI 0.86 to 275.74). Drainage was associated with lower shoulder, abdominal pain, and nausea, but this was not statistically significant. Hospital stay was longer in the drain group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Drain use after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces early post-operative pain, but increases wound infection rates and delays hospital discharge. We could not find evidence to support the use of drain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Routine abdominal drainage for uncomplicated open cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is the removal of gallbladder and is performed mainly for symptomatic gallstones. Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy is currently preferred over open cholecystectomy for elective cholecystectomy, reports of randomised clinical trials comparing the choice of cholecystectomy (open or laparoscopic) in acute cholecystitis are still being conducted. Drainage in open cholecystectomy is a matter of considerable debate. Surgeons use drains primarily to prevent subhepatic abscess or bile peritonitis from an undrained bile leak. Critics of drain condemn drain use as it increases wound and chest infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage in uncomplicated open cholecystectomy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing 'no drain' versus 'drain' in patients who had undergone uncomplicated open cholecystectomy (irrespective of language, publication status, and the type of drain). Randomised clinical trials comparing one drain with another were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics and methodological quality of each trial, number of abdominal collections requiring different treatments, bile peritonitis, wound infection, chest complications, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty eight trials involving 3659 patients were included. There were 20 comparisons of 'no drain' versus 'drain' and 12 comparisons of one drain with another. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality, bile peritonitis, total abdominal collections, abdominal collections requiring different treatments, or infected abdominal collections. 'No drain' group had statistically significant lower wound infection (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87) and statistically significant lower chest infection (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84) than drain group. We found no significant differences between different types of drains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Drains increase the harms to the patient without providing any additional benefit for patients undergoing open cholecystectomy and should be avoided in open cholecystectomy.

Cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with silent gallstones

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is currently advised only for patients with symptomatic gallstones. However, about 4% of patients with asymptomatic gallstones develop symptoms including cholecystitis, obstructive jaundice, pancreatitis, and gallbladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of surgical removal of the gallbladder for patients with asymptomatic gallstones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until 2006 for identifying the randomised trials using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing cholecystectomy and no cholecystectomy were considered for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy.

MAIN RESULTS

We were unable to identify any randomised clinical trial comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no randomised trials comparing cholecystectomy versus no cholecystectomy in patients with silent gallstones. Further evaluation of observational studies, which measure outcomes such as obstructive jaundice, gallstone-associated pancreatitis, and/or gall-bladder cancer for sufficient duration of follow-up is necessary before randomised trials are designed in order to evaluate whether cholecystectomy or no cholecystectomy is better for asymptomatic gallstones.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration

BACKGROUND

Use of T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is controversial. We were unable to identify any meta-analysis or systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage after common bile duct exploration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of routine primary closure versus T-tube drainage following laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without a biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from the one identified trial. We analysed the data using the fixed-effect model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial with 55 patients randomised: 27 to the primary closure and 28 to the T-tube group. This trial was of inadequate methodological quality. There was no mortality in either group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes except for the hospital stay (WMD -2.8 days, 95% CI -1.93 to -3.67), which was lower in the primary closure group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have insufficient evidence to recommend T-tube drainage over primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct stone exploration or vice versa. Further randomised trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of T-tube drainage compared with primary closure after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.

Primary closure versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration

BACKGROUND

Between 5% and 11% of people undergoing cholecystectomy have common bile duct stones. Open common bile duct exploration is an important operation when endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography fails or when expertise for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration is not available. The optimal method for performing open common bile duct exploration is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to assess the benefits and harms of primary closure versus routine T-tube drainage in open common bile duct exploration for common bile duct stones.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until January 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing primary closure (with or without biliary stent) versus T-tube drainage after open common bile duct exploration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics, methodological quality, mortality, morbidity, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects model using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 324 patients randomised: 165 to primary closure without stent and 159 to T-tube. Three of the five trials were considered to have adequate methodological quality, but all lacked blinded outcome assessment. The primary closure group had significantly lower positive bile culture (3 trials, OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.45) and wound infection (5 trials, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.56). When only trials with high methodological quality were included, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the outcomes except positive bile culture, which became non-significant when the random-effects model was used. The deaths of the three patients in the T-tube group were directly related to surgery and sepsis. Bile peritonitis was higher in the T-tube group (2.9%) than in the primary closure group (1%) (not statistically significant). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the T-tube group compared with the primary closure group in three of the four trials, which reported on the hospital stay. The only trial comparing primary closure with stent (37 patients) versus T-tube drainage (44 patients) did not reveal any statistically significant difference in any of the reported outcomes (mortality, re-operations, wound infection, and hospital stay). There was one case of stent migration, which could not be retrieved after two attempts of ERCP.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Primary closure after common bile duct exploration seems at least as safe as T-tube drainage. We need randomised trials that assess whether stents may offer benefits.

Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Gallstones are present in about 10% to 15% of the adult western population. Between 1% and 4% become symptomatic in a year. Cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones is mainly performed after the acute cholecystitis episode settles because of the fear of higher morbidity and conversion from laparoscopic cholecystectomy to open cholecystectomy during acute cholecystitis.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to compare the early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (less than seven days of onset of symptoms) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (more than six weeks after index admission) with regards to benefits and harms.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation IndexExpanded until November 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion all randomised clinical trials comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality of the trials, mortality, morbidity, conversion rate, operating time, and hospital stay from each trial. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using RevMan Analysis. For each outcome we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials with 451 patients randomised: 223 to the early group and 228 to the delayed group. Surgery was performed on 222 patients in the early group and on 216 patients in the delayed group. There was no mortality in any of the trials. Four of the five trials were of high methodological quality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for any of the outcomes including bile duct injury (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.70) and conversion to open cholecystectomy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34). Various other analyses including 'available case analysis', risk difference, statistical methods to overcome the 'zero-event trials' showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the outcomes measured. A total of 40 patients (17.5%) from the delayed group had to undergo emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy due to non-resolving or recurrent cholecystitis; 18 (45%) of these had to undergo conversion to open procedure. The total hospital stay was about three days shorter in the early group compared with the delayed group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during acute cholecystitis seems safe and shortens the total hospital stay. The majority of the outcomes occurred rarely; hence, the confidence intervals are wide. Therefore, further randomised trials on the issue are needed.

Long-term outcome of hepaticojejunostomy with routine access loop formation following iatrogenic bile duct injury

BACKGROUND

Hepaticojejunostomy is the 'gold standard' procedure for repairing iatrogenic bile duct injuries. The aim of this study was to examine the long-term outcome following hepaticojejunostomy for iatrogenic bile duct injury and the utility of routine construction of an access loop.

METHODS

Patients with iatrogenic biliary injuries were treated with hepaticojejunostomy and access loop by a single surgeon. Injuries were classified according to the Bismuth level. An 'excellent' outcome was achieved if the patient never experienced jaundice or cholangitis in the follow-up period, and the outcome was 'good' if the patient developed symptoms but was asymptomatic for more than 12 months.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients underwent such operation. There was one operative death. Thirty-three patients were followed for 3 years or more (mean follow-up 80.4 (range 46-118) months). Thirteen of the 33 injuries were Bismuth level II, 13 were Bismuth level III and seven were Bismuth level IV. Outcome was dependent on the Bismuth level (P < 0.001). It was excellent in all 13 patients with Bismuth level II injuries, excellent in seven and good in six of the 13 patients with Bismuth level III injuries, and excellent in one and good in six of the seven patients with Bismuth level IV injuries. Moreover, the need for access loop intervention was dependent on the Bismuth level (P < 0.001). No patient with Bismuth level II injury required intervention, compared with five of 13 with Bismuth level III and six of seven with Bismuth level IV injuries.

CONCLUSION

Biliary reconstruction affords satisfactory long-term outcome. The likelihood of needing the access loop for radiological intervention is dependent on the Bismuth level. The authors recommend that an access loop be constructed in all patients with Bismuth level III and IV injuries.

Multidisciplinary approach to biliary complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Bile leaks and bile duct strictures are major complications of cholecystectomy which increased in incidence after the introduction of laparoscopic surgery. The management and outcome of these complications following the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy was reviewed.

METHODS

Eighteen patients of median age 45 (range 22-70) years were treated between January 1992 and December 1995. Six patients had a common hepatic duct (CHD) stricture, four following a failed previous repair. Nine patients had bile leaks from bile duct transection (four), cystic stump (four) or segment V duct (one). Two patients had partial bile duct damage with primary sutured repair at time of cholecystectomy. One patient had recurrent haemobilia from a hepatic artery pseudoaneurysm.

RESULTS

Cystic stump or segment V leaks were treated successfully by endoscopic stenting (median follow-up 42 months). Roux loop biliary reconstruction was carried out in nine patients: two CHD strictures, three of the four failed primary CHD repairs and four bile duct transections. All had normal liver function test results at median follow-up of 30 months. The two patients with partial duct injuries repaired at initial surgery required no further intervention. The right hepatic artery aneurysm was successfully embolized. There have been no deaths or major complications of endoscopic, radiological or surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic stenting successfully treats cystic stump and segment V duct leaks. Duct strictures, including failed initial repairs and transections, have a good outcome with Roux-en-Y loop reconstruction.

Plastic and metal stents for postoperative benign bile duct strictures: the best and the worst

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment of postoperative benign bile duct strictures (BBDS) is technically challenging, and the long-term outcome after stricture dilation remains poorly defined.

METHODS

Forty-eight cases of postoperative BBDS with attempted endoscopic treatment (either transient plastic stenting or definitive metal stent insertion) were reviewed.

RESULTS

Endoscopic stricture dilation succeeded in 47 of 48 cases (98%). No procedure-related mortality was observed; 16 (33%) procedure-related or stent-associated complications were observed during treatment. Endoscopic treatment was interrupted in five patients. Stricture relapse occurred in 6 of 6 (100%) and 7 of 36 (19%) patients after metal stent insertion and plastic stent removal, respectively (p < 0.001) (mean follow-up periods 50+/-12 and 44+/-34 months, respectively). After plastic stent removal, stricture relapses were more frequent among patients with strictures related to liver transplantation as opposed to other surgical procedures (p < 0.05); these recurrent strictures were successfully treated by repeated insertion of plastic stents on a temporary basis. At the end of follow-up, all but one patient treated with plastic stents had normal serum alkaline phosphatase values.

CONCLUSION

Metal stents proved to be inadequate for treating postoperative BBDS. Temporary insertion of a plastic stent (possibly repeated) provided long-term results equal or superior to those reported for surgical biliary drainage. Repeated insertion of plastic stents was more frequently indicated for strictures related to liver transplantation compared with other surgical procedures.